beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant which orders the following payment:
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff, while engaging in the business of supplying food materials, supplied food materials to each other in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “F Holdings” (hereinafter “the instant goods”) from July 2012 to May 2013, as shown in the attached Table, and the outstanding amount generated during the said period is KRW 25,750,400 in total (hereinafter “the instant goods price”).
B. On December 28, 2012, the name of the business operator of the instant securities transaction certificate was changed from “C, D” to “Defendant, C, and D.”
[Ground of recognition] The purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Since the Defendant is a partnership in which the Defendant is a member of the association, the Defendant, who is a member of the association, is jointly and severally liable to pay the price of the instant goods supplied to the said partnership with C and D, another member of the association (the Plaintiff is liable to pay the Defendant as a business operator, and the Plaintiff’s claim is asserted as above.
(2) Even if the Defendant is not a member, the Defendant is obligated to pay the price of the instant goods in accordance with Article 24 of the Commercial Act, as the Defendant consented to the use of the Defendant’s name in relation to the operation of the instant crowdfunding.
B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) is G. The Defendant intended to receive G’s equity interests and the claim for the refund of the lease deposit of the Bank Holdings in order to secure G’s loan. The Defendant did not have any obligation to pay the price of the instant goods because it did not have any participation in the operation of the instant Party or any distribution of profits. (2) The Plaintiff did not mislead the Defendant as the business owner, and there was no fact that the Defendant was involved in the operation of the instant Party, and therefore, the Defendant did not have any trust as the business owner. Therefore, the Defendant is not liable for the nominal owner.